kristus
Megablast!
Posts: 9569
Registered: 07-00 |
Gez said:
And on the other hand, I could look for a "frontier.org"... (Try reaching the status of Admiral/Prince/Elite without ever using saves because they're like cheating and kill the challenge yadda yadda yadda.)
I don't play Frontier, so I have nothing to say about it. But how about you pay a little bit of attention? I don't mind saving a game. Unless I am out to speed-run SS2 for instance, I am pretty much required to use saves to make it through since the game will take an awful lot of time to beat. But since you don't appreciate the difference between saving at key junctions instead of every time you killed something. I can see how you get confused.
Gez said:
My previous point was that quicksave == save. If you can save, you can save, period. Whether you have a shortcut key or must pass through the menu changes nothing as far as the feature is concerned.
And still, no one cares. If you want to save often. go ahead and do it.
Gez said:
Now for the other fancy-schmancy features like health regen, multiple lives, continues and what-have you... Really, generalizing and saying "it's bad all the time" is being obtuse.
I've never said that. I play lots of games without health all together. But those games aren't FPSes where it's about the action, so why should I compare them to Rage?
Gez said:
You have health regen in Portal, for example. It is completely okay there. It's a puzzle game foremost. In situations where you start taking damage, you either back away quickly and try something else, have calculated your trajectory so as to reach cover real fast, or die.
Portal is by your own admission a puzzle game, not a shooter. You know Myst, that's first person too. And some of them are even in 3d. And in some cases you can even shoot in them. ZOMG FPS. You can't die there for the most part. I still love them, Portal is a nice little game. Not at the level of Myst as far as Puzzle solving goes. But it could be with custom made maps. I would't normally compare it to Myst, but I wouldn't compare it to any FPS games either.
Gez said:
Given how in a more typical FPS you'd have plenty of time to graze upon turkey diners and medikits by stomping on them and get back on full health, and given how enemies don't chase you around making a trip back to a stash of health more tedious than entertaining, it's a very good design decision for that game.
It's interesting how you and Zaldron only can think about bad level design when you speak of health packs. There are many ways to use health packs in maps. Some are static, some are collectible. Some are purchasable, some are convertable (System Shock2 for instance). All of them I prefer over having regenerating health. As I said before though. I don't mind the way they did it in Max payne where the last bit of health can regenerate so you won't have to peak around that corner with 1%. But I really don't think it's an important feature.
Gez said:Even games that "adapt themselves to the player's skill" can be good, potentially -- if it means that they use some funky AI system to learn the player's methods and ramp up the challenge accordingly. If it's used to make it easier, it's more debatable; if it's too hard the player should swallow his pride and select a lower difficulty level himself.[/B]
Anything can be good potentially. I don't really like stuff like auto adjusting game play. I saw in one game once that I don't recall, the game would pop up a box asking if you wanted to lower your skill level when you had died a few times in the roughly same spot. I much rather prefer that method to the game patronizing you and deciding it's too much for you to handle.
Last edited by kristus on 08-02-09 at 20:11
|
08-02-09 18:00 
